On Sat, Mar 05, 2022 at 09:15:10AM +0800, Bang Li wrote:
> the vmap_area_root should be in the "busy" tree and the free_vmap_area_root
> should be in the "free" tree.
>
> Fixes: 688fcbfc06e4 ("mm/vmalloc: modify struct vmap_area to reduce its size")
> Signed-off-by: Bang Li <libang.linuxer@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> include/linux/vmalloc.h | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/vmalloc.h b/include/linux/vmalloc.h
> index 880227b9f044..05065915edd7 100644
> --- a/include/linux/vmalloc.h
> +++ b/include/linux/vmalloc.h
> @@ -80,8 +80,8 @@ struct vmap_area {
> /*
> * The following two variables can be packed, because
> * a vmap_area object can be either:
> - * 1) in "free" tree (root is vmap_area_root)
> - * 2) or "busy" tree (root is free_vmap_area_root)
> + * 1) in "free" tree (root is free_vmap_area_root)
> + * 2) or "busy" tree (root is vmap_area_root)
> */
> union {
> unsigned long subtree_max_size; /* in "free" tree */
> --
> 2.25.1
>
Agree, those comments were messed up.
Reviewed-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@xxxxxxxxx>
--
Vlad Rezki
